The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

Originally posted by CHRLZ
OK, onto 08... First... I gotta say it.. While my expectations weren't high, the '08 video was a bit of a waste of time. Remember those few
brief moments of stability in the '07 video when Yalman turned on the Image Stabiliser (IS)? Sadly you'll also recall that very soon after, he
turned it off. (Wouldn't want stable images now, would we...)

Anyway, here we are one year later, and if anything, the images are worse. No tripod, no return of the IS, and in fact the only difference is
we have diiferent lighting effects, and more grandiose claims. Indeed the translated comments are so comical that I shall ignore them and simply let
them speak for themselves..

--- SNIP---

Hi CHRLZ, I think in some time Yalcin Yalman used a tripod, but almost all of his recordings show no stability...

Thanks, alfafox - yes, I've noticed at least one sequence in the 09 video where a tripod (not a very good one) is being used. The fact that he has
IS (image stabilisation) turned off for almost all of the footage, despite showing that he knew it was there in 07, is rather damning.

And I just *love* that image. I see the tripod centre post is extended.. bzzzt. But of course it is a publicity shot, so that would explain it...

I'm just trying to get my head around Urzi getting tips from Yalman (or vice versa).

Just imagine what they could create, by putting their talents together! [sarcasm]

Added:
That image shows the tele-extender lens I alluded to earlier. I don't recognise the brand, but it's worth noting that it is clearly not designed
for the camera - it is way too narrow and you can see it vignetting the image badly in the 09 video. Also, Canon do NOT recommend the use of such
lenses for the GL1 due to the loss of image quality - the zoom lens on the camera is badly compromised by such folly.

But it *looks* like something impressive, and that's all that counts for some people...

A common illusion is the appearance of “fog” in superior mirages. The cause is the very long air-path of the strongly-refracted rays, particularly
when ducting is involved. This appearance is so well known to mirage researchers that Pernter and Exner devote a few (rather confused) pages to it; a
better discussion is given by Bonnelance (1929). Here's a good example, selected from Wim van Bochoven's mirage pictures:

0:00
Video time - 2009/5/13 2:19am
The footage commences with that same 'notched' object again, as usual, heavily underexposed on the now obligatory featureless background.
Interestingly, this footage appears to have been taken on a TRIPOD! Sadly, it is still quite shaky, and he is clearly using the tele-extender, so the
quality is still poor. Further, it seems he does not realise that as long as he is holding the camera, he is wobbling the camera/tripod about. This
is obviously a flimsy tripod - a camera like the GL1 needs something solid, especially when it is heavily unbalanced by a large add-on lens. Funnily
enough, he would probably have been far better off using a small bean bag on top of a car roof or similar...
Anyway, the object is very obviously a perfect match for its previous appearances in the notched form, as shown by this little snap:

It shows a still from 09 overlaid on one from 07 - while the lighting is different (see other comments about lights shining through trees, etc..) the
object is obviously a match.

At 0:22 Yalman again adjust the exposure down (you can hear the detents clicking as he does this). Always dimmer... Perhaps Yalman only found out
how to adjust the aperture, not the shutter speed? Seems strange, as he found out about manual exposure - just not how to use it properly, or
perhaps how to use it to hide stuff... If you are thinking there may not be enough light - see my comments further down, when he gives the game
away when he includes the Moon...

One more comment, at about 0:50, the images have the 'slurred' effect that indicates he may have Image Stabilisation (IS) turned on. Many
manufacturers recommend that you turn IS off when using a tripod, but given the shakiness of this tripod, it is difficult to tell if that is helping
or hindering..

Just for the record, the best image quailty so far seems to be at about 1:21 - he seems to have fluked the focus.. But it is still quite low
resolution, and no useful edge detail exists. The 'aliens'

are still just a small blurry blob - they don't even appear to be holding rayguns!!
(sorry)

Yalman, inexplicably, keeps playing with the exposure, constantly dimming and brightening the image. I felt the strong urge to slap his hand away and
tell him to stop playing with it!

1:36
Video time - 2009/5/13 3:57am
Since the last effort, he has now abandoned the tripod. He has also abandoned the focus control it seems - the footage from 1:36 to 2:00 is uselessly
out of focus.

At 2:03, he has zoomed the image to ridiculous levels (both digital and tele-extender in use) and attempted to focus it a little, but the image is
simply dreadful! There are huge swathes of chromatic aberration (CA) - pretty colours, but completely devoid of useful detail. The image is shaking
uncontrollably (he's turned IS OFF, now that he needs it..) This whole sequence is just useless amorphous shapes, and is probably the worst
so far.

2:34
Video time - 2009/5/15 4:59am
Another change of scene, and again we see the object in its un-notched form, but with the similar edge details/lighting as in 07 and 08. Again, no
tripod, no IS, shaky, underexposed, no background detail, no transition, the usual downwards adjustment of exposure...

3:11
Video time - 2009/5/15 5:20am
At last - something new!! 4 little flickering lights in a curve... And it seems that there is a little light around, as dawn approaches, perhaps?
Now first up - *is this supposed to be the same object?* We don't see any transition (are you surprised?). As far as I know Yalman hasn't even
claimed it is the same. It doesn't LOOK the same, and this overlay strongly suggests that:

there is simply no correlation in either shape or size - even if you change the sizes dramatically from what is presumably the same (maximum)
magnification for each - it just doesn't match. The lights are MUCH smaller and a completely different shape. These are obviously NOT
the same object. If claimed otherwise, where is the footage showing the change from one to the other???? As further evidence, the lights are
scintillating, exactly consistent with them being at least a few kilometres distant, being filmed through a lot of atmosphere (a misty morning
over water will also contribute greatly).. And yet this effect has not been seen on ANY of the other objects!!! One would have to suggest that
the other objects are either much nearer, or are not over water. OR BOTH. In summary - there is NOTHING similar about the two different types of
scene.

At 3:17, yalman zooms back and you can see the efefctive aperture of the lens increases (ie it lets in more light), so we can now see the water, and
what appears to be the horizon (which could however simply be a mist rolling in).

At 3:35, he zooms right back. The lens 'vignettes' (the image becomes a circle with black borders). This shows us several things:

1. He is using a tele-extender lens to increase the focal length. Canon does NOT recommend such lenses as they reduce resolution and cause other
unwanted effects like chromatic aberration, as mentioned above..

2. The lens is not matched to the camera (if it was, it would not show those black borders and have to be even larger than it already is).

3. The lens is probably a 1.5x or 2.0x, judging by the amount of vignetting, but that is just an educated guess.

4. Note that the circle is significantly offset - uncentred. That suggests that the extender is poorly mounted (duck tape?

), or that the camera is
poorly constructed or perhaps damaged. To be honest, this isn't that unusual, but it does suggest that the lens and sensor are not going be giving
their best, perhaps explaining some of the fuzziness.

At 3:48, Yalman pans across to show another bright light in the sky, higher this time. It looks like an aircraft, but he doesn't hold it in a steady
image long enough to tell if it is moving.

As a side issue, note that at 3:52, there is a dark object floating/swimming/whatever in the water...

Think about that in regard to the dog's behavior later...

He zooms into the light a bit, but doesn't manage to focus on it before there is ANOTHER cut in the footage. Sigh.

4:00
Video time - 2009/5/15 5:27am
Just six minutes have elapsed, and now we suddenly cut to a zoomed in image of the four lights again. As he zooms back, we see Yalman's (?) dog
barking at the water, vaguely in the direction of the lights, but also roughly in the direction where the dark object was - although for some reason,
Yalman doesn't zoom back enough for us to verify where he is now standing. The footage clearly indicates that there is a lot of mist/cloud/pollution
in the air.

What happened in those six minutes, I wonder??

4:51
Video time - 2009/5/15 5:32am
More footage of the four lights, a bit brighter. The footage clearly indicates that there is a lot of mist/cloud/pollution in the air. The dog is no
longer barking, but the lights are still there...

5:12
Video time - 2009/5/17 3:02am
This and the next segment are puzzling. First, Yalman appears to show the Moon (at 3:02am) and below and to the LEFT can be seen what appears to be a
streetlight and some other ground detail:

Note that I have wound this image up a little to show the object a litttle more clearly, and also show the horrific posterisation that proves the
image has been deliberately manipulated to exclude any detail in dark areas. Whatever is at bottom left, is clearly NOT the object in the other
takes... The scene is somewhat underexposed, but still shows a VERY bright Moon... More about this later..

For some reason, Yalman has AutoFocus engaged and it is continually racking back and forth (5:14) trying to find more detail than the Moon to focus
on. This shows WHY AutoFocus is useless at night - even on a good camera like the GL1, it's hopeless.

5:17
Video time - 2009/5/17 3:06am Note the timestamp - this is just 4 minutes later!! The exposure has been changed downwards again, by several stops.. Note that this is a
WIDE view, and judging by the fact that the objects at bottom left have now vanished, something funny is going on. Did Yalman duck down a bit
below his fence, perhaps, while he was busy changing the exposure settings?

He zooms slowly in, the now VERY DIM Moon disappears at top-mid-left, and he shows our familar object again, but this time the notch looks a little
different. Still just as fuzzy and unclear, and now Yalman has demonstrated, by the way the Moon was very obviously dimmed out, that he has
DELIBERATELY adjusted the expsure down so as to not show the background. What is he hiding?

While he appears to be using a tripod and IS again, the image is digitally zoomed and suffering again from the horrid CA and fuzziness.

At 5:37 he zooms back, once again showing the now-dim moon. The next part is boring as all hell, and I suggest you turn down the sound, as it sounds
like Yalman is.. er.. oh dear..

He zooms back in at 6:02, then back out, helpfully showing us that uderexposed moon quite clearly at 6:24:

Again, I emphasise that to get such a dimly lit moon, you would have to deliberately wind the exposure WAY DOWN. Deliberately... That fact can be
easily proved by taking any digicam out at night and shooting the Moon...

And through all this, no transitions. We never get to see it arrive, or go. We never get to see it as dawn lights up the sky, and see it
magically transform its shape and lighting completely into what looks exactly like lights on a ship.

OK, I've waffled enough for now. I haven't finished though! - I've got some more to say and a summary of all the 'issues' and giveaways,
but that can wait. I'd like to hear other comments first. I'd also like to hear any objections to what I have said - Free Spirit, now's ya
chance!!!

But if you wish to dispute my comments, come armed with your wits... I know this topic rather well (modest, aren't I..).

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Is it me or is there a distinct echo in the dogs bark at the 2:35 mark?
Sounds like it's inside.
Dunno if this means anything.

I confess I had not actually listened to the footage at 2:35 - i was getting sick of Yalcin's drone...

So I just bravely threw on my trusty but aging Sennheisers and took a long hard listen. Yes, i agree that there is a subtle difference, but not by
much, and I'm not sure if it is evidence - but I am absolutely 100% percent convinced that the beach scenes have nothing at all to do with the darker
scenes anyway. They may well be shot from a similar or even the same location, but the objects being recorded are not related in any way whatsoever
to the lights.

Prove me wrong, Yalman!! Show some daytime footage from ALL these locations, panning around - I particularly want to see that streetlight you
accidentally caught, and where it is... Show us the transition to dawn. Show us what boat/ship lights DO look like at dawn in similar conditions.
Describe how the object morphs completely, and how come you never captured it. Explain why you use such ridiculous exposure settings... Etc,
etc....

I think someone here knows Yalman, and might just pass these challenges on...

I happen to agree with you CHRLZ. The dog is not evidence of anything and one would expect fishing boats to be seen, after all, they do fish for squid
with their fishing jiggers. The flashing lights could very well be a fishing boat or two in the fog and it is not uncommon for a dog to bark when he
sees something. They want a "good boy" pat on the head. The two scenes are so not related.

Squid boats do have bi-lateral hanging lights over the water or the new led lights underneath the water and must be anchored. The lights of course to
attract the squid. The fog of course would dim the whole view of that scenario. *Just a thought.

This guy does dart from one frame to another which is totally unrelated to the other. You don't see the transition. He wants to save batteries? Ya
think in three years he would get it right?

Unlike you CHRLZ, I don't have the patience to do a step by step. So far so good with your delineations. A big thumbs up to you!

Dunno about this one? But suggest our real in-depth researchers go back in time and take a peak at the USS Roosevelt Carrier and what happened there
(1950-65). One of the more interesting points to the time was their offensive weapons.

Originally posted by Chadwickusit me or is there a distinct echo in the dogs bark at the 2:35 mark?

Sounds like it's inside.

Dunno if this means anything.

It sounds like the dog itself is some distance away. The echo is consistent with the volume of the dog's bark. If I ripped the audio from the video
and it was clear enough the echo (or reverb if ya like) would be consistent with the volume of the dog's bark. So it is a dog far away not a close
dog with a far away echo.

It does not prove anything either way. You can add sounds in windows movie maker. I could add a dog barking to any video you like!

Dunno about this one? But suggest our real in-depth researchers go back in time and take a peak at the USS Roosevelt Carrier and what happened there
(1950-65). One of the more interesting points to the time was their offensive weapons.

Originally posted by alfafox
Hi CHRLZ, I think in some time Yalcin Yalman used a tripod, but almost all of his recordings show no stability...

I think I know why...

Freelance_zenarchist.....

For interest's sake, I think that picture was taken outside the 2009 UFO conference in Istanbul.

I recall the videos of Yalman with his new "UFO groupies".

I also recall the histrionic filming of the "UFO" that "flew" over the people milling around outside the conference as per this photo. The UFO
seemed to be utilising advanced holographic stealth technology that made it look like a balloon.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.